irrationality is no hindrance to something being 'true'

Quote:

This is a well established forum of relatively honest contributors. Frauds like you provide an interesting diversion but generally go and play elsewhere when challenged to actually debate the contributions of others. S

we are debateing deans views -but you are debating the man-seems you have some real issues with the views so get into ad hominums to hide your real problems-ENVY perhaps

i think you dislike dean for showing that your iodols are talking nonsence-socrates had the same problem

0 Replies

Okay Dean,

Lets examine the proposition.

Quote:

irrationality is no hindrance to something being 'true'

This is correct if we define "truth" as "what works"...a position I myself advocate. From my position the "irrationality" merely indicates the ephemeral nature of "truth". In other words, "what works" operationally is subject to intellectual paradigm shifts (Kuhn) which delimit the bases for expectancy of operational prediction. Such "bases" are what mainstream epistemology tends to be concerned with.

This position of course questions the ontological status of "truth" which is problematic to naive realists and theists. The significance of QM in its handling of the wave-partcle "paradox" in that it underscores the nondualistic nature of "observer" and "observed". From an esoteric point of view this nonduality is a generalized principle involved in the concept of "illusion" (NOT "nonsense") but from the point of view of "systems theory" this is resolved by a "levels analysis" desciption by second order cybernetics Von Foerster) as "observation of observation". Piaget is significant in providing the background for such a alternative "constructivist epistemology" NOT because his concept of "equilibration" was based on "logical paradox" but because it was based in "systemic conflict" at the level of biological substrate (a point misunderstood by you in your 1992 thesis). The biological substratum for "cognition" was taken up and advanced by Maturana with the help of evidence from Prigogines work on autopoietic systems which model "life processes". (A reading of Capra explains the relationship).

Thus the "paradigm shifts" associated with "scientific progress" can be seen as an example of Piagetian equilibration at the level of "social structure". And since "language" constitutes the "blood cells" of such a structure it cannot be "understood" outwith its social function.

0 Replies

Quote:

This position of course questions the ontological status of "truth" which is problematic to naive realists and theists. The significance of QM in its handling of the wave-partcle "paradox" in that it underscores the nondualistic nature of "observer" and "observed". From an esoteric point of view this nonduality is a generalized principle involved in the concept of "illusion" (NOT "nonsense") but from the point of view of "systems theory" this is resolved by a "levels analysis" desciption by second order cybernetics Von Foerster) as "observation of observation". Piaget is significant in providing the background for such a alternative "constructivist epistemology" NOT because his concept of "equilibration" was based on "logical paradox" but because it was based in "systemic conflict" at the level of biological substrate (a point misunderstood by you in your 1992 thesis). The biological substratum for "cognition" was taken up and advanced by Maturana with the help of evidence from Prigogines work on autopoietic systems which model "life processes". (A reading of Capra explains the relationship).

all these guys assume their language and logic is a priviliaged tool for with out proving it-thus the are still at the centra of the universe -dean shows that they all talk nonsence and are meaningless- it is no use presenting authority as dean say they are all talking nonsence and meaninlessness-u just cant seem to get it do you your gods are babblers of twaddle
dean decentres man from his arrongant position as a privilidge knower you must atack dean on his arguments and stop just presenting god as your evidence as dean says they are babblers of meaningless twaddle

all these guys assume their language and logic is a priviliaged tool for with out proving - dean denies this

0 Replies

Dean,

"Proof" Laughing

Your limited intellect is showing !

0 Replies

Quote:

Your limited intellect is showing

your inability to refute dean is showing by your ad hominums- allways a sure sign of defeat

0 Replies

Dean,

Didn't you spot my refutation of your citation of Piaget, or do you have have that Walkman permanently grafted into your brain all the time distrcting you with the drivel tape ?

Put up or shut up!

0 Replies

Quote:

Piaget is significant in providing the background for such a alternative "constructivist epistemology" NOT because his concept of "equilibration" was based on "logical paradox" but because it was based in "systemic conflict" at the level of biological substrate (a point misunderstood by you in your 1992 thesis).

if dean misunderstood piaget then that does not refute his central thesis in that work that paradox contradiction can raise consciousness- you are really busting your back to refute dean with such a trivile example-that works is about raising consciousness not the meaninglessness of all view-incidently dean in that work admiits his thesis/view will end in meaninglessness
if all you can point that is wrong with deans 1992 work is a perhaps misunderstanding of piaget-he use many other authors - then i would think deans work was pretty well successful in arguing its case
incidently his examiners did not feel he misunderstood piaget as he got his MA

incidently refuting dean will only prove dean as he says even meaninglessness ends in meaningless
him and every one else talks nonsence meaningless babble
why not find meaninglessness in kant wittgenstien piaget and all rest of your gods-that will do you much better than just finding fault with dean-if you cant find meaninglessness in your gods view then you really are not thinking hard enough-they are there if you just look

0 Replies

So in summary your argument is that the "establishment" sets up their "gods" which the students have to pay homage to in a parody of sexual nuance and hypocrisy in order pass a meaningless initiation rite ?

What simplistic claptrap !

Deakin must really be the academic pits if it turns out students so naive that they need to model their educational "epiphany" on the Marquis de Sade, or if we are to believe it employs staff unprofessional enough to require an "unbalanced view". Any student with a brain in their heads knows that the veracity of the subject matter is not the issue, and that it is their prowess in presentation which is being tested. Only a fool would consider this to be a revelation.

0 Replies

Quote:

Any student with a brain in their heads knows that the veracity of the subject matter is not the issue, and that it is their prowess in presentation which is being tested. Only a fool would consider this to be a revelation.

which is subjective and explianed socilogically and not by cogent argument- thanks for agreeing with dean

Quote:

So in summary your argument is that the "establishment" sets up their "gods" which the students have to pay homage to in a parody of sexual nuance and hypocrisy in order pass a meaningless initiation rite ?

you are the one refering to philosopher god/ ie with dennet witt fodor darwin etc - i see you have passed your initiation as set out by your university establishment- again agreeing with dean

The dialectic reductio ad absurdum argument: a method of philosophical argumentation or analysis demonstrating the meaninglessness of all views

Quote:

0 Replies

You just don't get it do you Dean !

IMO "Meaning" is the web of interactions involved in consensual social structures. It is therefore a trivial tautology for disenters to claim "lack of meaning." The genius of "the greats" is that they significantly shift or tip the consensual web" towards a new "structure". This is a dynamic ongoing process which unless you are a theist or a simpleton need have no objective or goal as its target other than temporary syntagmatic intellectual harmony.

0 Replies

Quote:

The genius of "the greats" is that they significantly shift or tip the consensual web" towards a new "structure"

you simply dont get it fresco

Quote:

dean does not deny gods have shifted things to new structure but he argues people should realise these new structure are as meaningless as the rest of these so called gods other views
you only listen to them based upon the authority confered on them by arbitary standards
if marx kant wrote what they did but where not university qualified no one would listen
you even agree with this since you tried to disparge dean by claiming he is a no body in the world of philosophy- implying if he was a somebody that would give him crediblity

once again

Quote:

0 Replies

Dean, you say that "dean decentres man from his arrongant position as a privilidge knower". I'm puzzled by your use of (epistemological) privilege. Is not man an animal that necessarily engages the world in terms of his "knowleldge constructions", that is to say his opinions about what is the nature of that which he engages? As such, "knowledge" has to do primarily with utility, with prediction and control. We humans would like (and often presume) our knowledge to be objective and absolute, agreements with God--which may be what you mean by privilege.

I think it is a widely acknowledged, almost zoological, notion that human "knowledge" is an aspect of "human behavior", behavior oriented to survival through control. As far as I know, there is no other knowledge than human knowleldge. Our "center" in this respect is a function of our nature, not an error of arrogance. If there is arrogance here it pertains only to absolutism, not the practice of constructing useful, ephermal and relativistic "truths".
By the way, the history of "knowledge" reveals a history of useful and species-preserving errors.

0 Replies

JLN,

Nicely put.

Unfortunately Dean may be incapable of escape from his box. Your mention of zoology brings to mind the institutionalized caged animal who is unable to function if the cage is removed. After all he's invested his own money in the box !

These alter egos which Dean plays with are still confined to his side of the bars, in comparison to say your own demonstrated ability to constructively criticise an earlier response some aspect of "self" made.

0 Replies

Quote:

Dean, you say that "dean decentres man from his arrongant position as a privilidge knower". I'm puzzled by your use of (epistemological) privilege. Is not man an animal that necessarily engages the world in terms of his "knowleldge constructions", that is to say his opinions about what is the nature of that which he engages? As such, "knowledge" has to do primarily with utility, with prediction and control. We humans would like (and often presume) our knowledge to be objective and absolute, agreements with God--which may be what you mean by privilege.

I think it is a widely acknowledged, almost zoological, notion that human "knowledge" is an aspect of "human behavior", behavior oriented to survival through control. As far as I know, there is no other knowledge than human knowleldge. Our "center" in this respect is a function of our nature, not an error of arrogance. If there is arrogance here it pertains only to absolutism, not the practice of constructing useful, ephermal and relativistic "truths".
By the way, the history of "knowledge" reveals a history of useful and species-preserving errors.

it is not the utility dean decentres but the the arrogant idea that the explanations behind the utility have a privilaged poition as knowledge about the universe

people make the fallacy in believing because it works then the explanation as to why it works is a privilagded piece of knowledge about the universe
dean never denies the utility or that man can make things happen he just denies that the explanations have any privilaged position
as the explantions will end in meaninglessness because logic and language end in meaningless
there thus man is decentred from his privilaged position as knower

but pragmaticism and instrumentalism perspectivism likewise end in and meaninglessness are no privilaged knowledge about the universe -why because they use logic and language

when man put explanation as to why his utilities work he is just babbling meaningless twaddle

0 Replies

....and the animal continues to circle the cage having been nowhere, and with nowhere to go...and the audience moves off in boredom.....

0 Replies

Quote:

....and the animal continues to circle the cage having been nowhere, and with nowhere to go...and the audience moves off in boredom.....

and fresco is still in platos cave of shadows

0 Replies

...having helped fix the lighting on more than one occasion.... :wink:

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=13531&highlight=#13531

0 Replies

Quote:

.having helped fix the lighting on more than one occasion.

better lighting only makes the shadows darker more vivid -it cant get rid of the shadows

0 Replies

this reminds me of diogenes, one of my favorite philosophers.

another philosopher appraoched him and said he could "prove" motion doesnt exist.

diogenes simply walked away.

I dont know what your point is, i dont think anyone thinks humans are the knowers of the universe. WE ARE SIMPLY OBSERVERS OF IT.

Everyone should know by now that free-will means the ability to choose.
YOU have to CHOOSE if something has meaning or not, using numbers you can prove anything.

logic is part of existence. from the moment our universe "began" it started creating patterns.you can see it on a table of elements, you can see it in a sheet of music. from electromagnetic radiation to the feeling you get when your with the girl you love. language has limitations, so does logic.

all life is is fluctuations and math. all we do is observe patterns and figure out how to change, negate, or create new patterns. its utterly pointless, but you are free to choose whether or not it has a meaning to you.

i think you have confused pointless and meaningless. meaning is something you give something, if you do not give language a meaning then it simply has none.

0 Replies

OGIONIK

Dean has no point to make other than the obvious one that language and logic are limited. He stupidly claims that this is sufficient to put himself on a par (or even above) celebrated thinkers who have wrestled with that problem. This is of course a smokescreen to cover his lack of ability and his rejection by "the establishment" who understandably want no truck with a foul-mouthed amateur.

0 Replies

irrationality is no hindrance to something being 'true'

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know